Chess Instruction Not Mature

There is a lot of theory out about training in various fields. In some fields, the technique is well understood, the methodology for obtaining that technique is well understood, and the way to teach students to obtain mastery is well understood.

In other fields, that is not the case. For example, I play guitar. If you examine great guitar players, there is a lot of variation in their technique. Likewise, how to best teach becoming a good guitar player is still rather unclear. Some things are well understood, others are not.

In the case of chess, looking at how instruction is done, I get the feeling that how to best teach it is still very immature. Do you focus on tactics? When do you introduce more positional concepts? Should tactics problems be timed or untimed? When should students start to memorize some opening lines? Some people think Silman is terrific. Other coaches think he is way off base. Where is the use of computers in training helpful and where is it harmful? Do you really need to play variations out on a real board (Yusupov) or not? Do you start a student with simple endgames or not? Are blitz games important or counter productive? (Fischer's teacher insisted he play them, because he felt Bobby was a bit too plodding with his moves).

I get the feeling that part of the variation in player's strength is of course tied to how much study they put into it.

But I very much get the feeling that part of it is tied into what degree a player found an at least adequate method of study as well.

It may not be mature but something must be working or we wouldn't be seeing 12 year old Grandmasters.

There have been young great players in the past. There have been players great for their time way back. That doesn't mean that instructional methods were mature.

Jimi Hendrix was one terrific guitar player. That doesn't mean he received good let alone mature instruction.

Chess training is pretty good as for as hobbies go.  Way better than, say, many video game training which is just a few youtube videos and (for the fortunate few) a few (and very few) books... almost never any coach/group/private in-person training.

Take even Pokemon trading cards game (which is a very popular game and have well-organized tournaments), finding good training is way harder than chess.  You don't get tournament winners giving training; instead, you get just other hobby/store people.

I'd say, chess training is even better organized than poker!  Now, everybody (ok, just the adults here) can understand.  Chess traiing is pretty good.

Their is plenty of material. There is no question about that. But in terms of training, it isn't consistent. Different instructors have very different methods. If instructing chess was mature, that would not be the case.

Likewise, there is much instruction available for the guitar. But again, it isn't consistent. I could give concrete examples in guitar. But it wouldn't mean much to many of the people here.

I've already given examples in chess.

Guitar training has many method-based training developed; in chess, there are also many methods/systems that many GMs try to sell you.  There are standardized exams (e.g. ABRSM) so you can gauge your learning progress; in chess, there are the rating systems.  However, guitar's progress level measurement stops at around advanced-intermediate while chess (being more easily measured) goes all the way to world champ.  So, taken all together, chess training (and rating system that lets you know progress) is pretty well-developed compared to guitar.  (I play the piano, which has better developed training than guitar. and even classical piano IMHO can't touch chess.)

Maybe one of the problem with chess training is that it is VERY BORING.  So most people don't like to train for chess.  I mean, for example, piano, practicing can get addictive (you just get into it and play and play the measures to get it right).  But chess training is dry in comparison because there is not much playing involved (e.g. you solve a puzzle, analyze a game, read about other people's games; there's no active playing).  Chess training is too much theory; while instrumental music training is more hands-on and very light in theory until college (even then, it is still light on theory, there's theory courses).

Maybe this is why most people quit chess training earlier than music, both being equally fun TO PLAY.  And to combat the boring training, more methods are developed (GMs acting like comedians in an attempt to make lecturing more interesting).

Form my own experience, I love this chess training called Majestic Chess.  It is very hands-on.  You play a video game to train for chess.  Personally, I own many chess books and videos, but I've never finished any of them (or even got thru even half way).  It is just too boring.  I sat in my son's private coaching sessions, it is so boring that I agreed to let my son quit.

Anyway, maybe this is why, although chess training is very well developed (you can see by the huge amount of material out there), nobody likes it... so it FEELS under developed.

To this day, there are still arguments about how to teach math. As with chess, there are problems arising from the differences in abilities and goals from one person to another.

OK, but I've never known any player who practiced blindfold chess so that they'll be able to do it.

Rather, after all the other playing and work a person does, it just comes naturally.

So I think you're confusing which is the cause and which is the effect.

(Of course someone might practice it to be able to play more blindfold games simultaneously, or practice it so it's not as much of a handicap, but that's more a parlor trick than improving chess)

Part of it too is that with guitar (or the arts in general) even someone with no fingers can tell if a song sounds like crap when you play it.

But in chess, even people who have been playing for years may be blind to some of their most basic mistakes and had habits.

There are some exceptions.  I've seen a 2000+ player write a comment in these chess.com forum threads that he can't play blindfold chess.  

https://edtechnow.net/2013/05/12/pedagogy/ 

Understanding the nature of pedagogy is a necessary prerequisite to understanding what role technology will have in supporting education—and also to the selection of terms that we should use to describe and classify the business of teaching.

*Sigh* I was hoping there would be some instructions here for a mature audience.  Disappointed again. 

lol

Maybe the bunny would find this book interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Bitch-Women-Ultimate-Intellectual/dp/189008509X

should've been titled '50 shahades of grey'

You have all the best lines, no fair!

it's a bunny thing ...

Is there any reason to believe that chess improvement only takes place for those who reach 2100+ FIDE?

I dont think it is necessary to practice blindfold.

For example a lot of pro bike riders can ride without holding handle bar, and the same , a lot of pro chess players( 2100+ is close to pro) can play blindfold.

It is like natural flow of skill due to repetition.